The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Iconoclast]

"Yeah, that pretty much sums up what I'm seeing here, but Palmer may be inferring a more vulgar definition of 'getting off'. What other explanation is there for obsessively casting doubt on harmless, minority theories that pose no threat to majority views?"

Turns out RJ's informant was Caz!

I think it's somewhat harsh to imply that I generate "a colossal waste of bandwidth" simply because I fail to fall into line with the majority view.

My posts may well be harmless and pose no threat to the majority views (and Caz was quite correct to state this) but I'm not an ad populum kind of guy (some people are just desperate to be in the in-gang, but it's never been my gig, RJ - I literally do not care what anyone says as long as they aren't calling me a liar) so I paid no notice to it and will pay no heed to your assessment of the possible implications of it on my use of the world wide web's resources.

[Lombro2]

Makes you wonder at quite how inventive that radical hoaxer was, doesn't it? Of all the potential candidates for Jack - both then already accused and not accused - he or she or they doubled-down (don't forget the watch) on a relatively prosperous Liverpool middle class businessman of decent standing in his home city some two hundred miles away from the scenes of the crimes.

Maybe, Ike, Mike just thought that Jack the Ripper was an original so he had to be a Liverpudlian. And so then he picked the brother of the Paul McCartney of his day. He picked Mike Greer. [correction: Mike McGear]

It depends on how you look at the crimes but, even where I am, the most original artists come from the Northern Parts and, according to the last census, I think there're only about seven people living up there.

(Coaches from up there also won more Cups than ours from down here. Coaches from the big city haven't won since 1967.)

[Iconoclast]

Maybe, Ike, Mike just thought the Jack the Ripper was an original so he had to be a Liverpudlian. And so then he picked the brother of the Paul McCartney of his day.

Well, if he (or anyone else) did pick Maybrick, it was a truly breathtaking call to start a hoax with given how very little his social media profile fitted the generally anticipated bill.

He picked Mike Greer.

You will need to educate some of us (myself included) as to in what metaphorical sense A. N. Hoaxer chose the coach of the San Jose Sharks, I'm afraid.

It depends on how you look at the crimes but, even where I am, the most original artists come from the Northern Parts and, according to the last census, I think there're only about seven people living up there.

Being a Brit, I don't know what the Northern Parts are (all schoolboy innuendo aside) but it sounds like you'd be lucky to get your paper delivered there. Just seven people? Just enough for three-a-sides so not a place you'd ever find me begging on the streets of. Or street, probably.

(Coaches from up there also won more Cups than ours from down here. Coaches from the big city haven't won since 1967.)

Honestly, Viscount, I would sympathise but my own beloved Newcastle upon Tyne Magpies (which is probably what you'd call us if we were based across The Pond) haven't won a domestic trophy since 1955. How'd you like them apples? Yes, we won a European trophy in 1969 but UEFA don't even recognise it because it wasn't under their auspices! We have a good chance (far from a certainty) of reaching the League Cup final again this season (where we would meet Liverpool and lose again) and it would be extraordinary if we won it because 1) we'd have actually won one of the three English domestic competitions again at long long last, and 2) we'd have won a competition which didn't exist for the first six seasons after we last won a domestic trophy in 1955.

Still, up the Maple Leafs and down with the Shitty, sorry City of Sunderland Black Cats!

Ike

[Lombro2]

I meant Mike McGear.
Kill | Mike McGear Lyrics, Meaning & Videos

I’m only interested in those initials which were predicted in the Maybrick scrapbook and which - lo! - turned out to be there!

If your many Ms were unpredicted, then they were just Ms, I’m afraid.

Not all of us can work with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight vision or (maybe closer to 20-10 verging on legally blind).

Some of us have to work our way up with the Ms as the best clue and maybe only clue available.

PS I gave you a gift with the MishterLusk signoff example. Oh well, here's another. The GSG was written on Bricks.

[Iconoclast]

I meant Mike McGear.
Kill | Mike McGear Lyrics, Meaning & Videos

A bit like the familiarity of 'one-off' in the 1970s, Mike McCartney - using the name Mike McGear - was a very well-known member of The Scaffold whose biggest hit was the highly entertaining Lily the Pink in the late 1960s. Everyone knew he was Paul McCartney's brother then, and many of a certain age may do so still.

I think you need to seriously reassess what you appear to imagine to be the limitations of our knowledge of British English (and British pop stars) from a sadly very long time ago indeed as it seems to me that you are rather badly informed.

I loved your Books Published graph, mind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m only interested in those initials which were predicted in the Maybrick scrapbook and which - lo! - turned out to be there!

If your many Ms were unpredicted, then they were just Ms, I’m afraid.

I'm struggling with this one, Ike, and wondering if you can help me.

You tell us that Florence Maybrick's initials of "FM" on Kelly's wall were first published "in clear and unequivocal form" in a photograph included in a 1973 or even 1972 book and are "so clear" in that photograph.

So how can it be said that a scrapbook which made its first appearance in April 1992 predicted something which had already been publicly revealed about twenty years earlier?

Do you not think it's possible that the forger saw these very clear initials in a book when composing the diary and used them to support the forgery?

Or have I missed something?

[Mike J. G.]

No. I'm just pointing out the fact that debunkers should enjoy hoaxes if what they're debunking is a hoax. And proponents should enjoy promoting their "artifact" (or video) if their "artifact" is real.

When they get all worked up over it, then it give the impression of religious extremism or political fanaticism, and they appear to be overcompensating for their inner feeling of inadequacy regarding themselves and their belief or disbelief. It would shake my belief in them and what they have to say.

I used the Patterson-Gimlin Film example because it was used before by others for Ike. Ike is not the mainstream of this Unsolved Mystery. Ike is the Woo Factor.

That's a relief!

Two of my favourite hoaxes happen to be the PGF and the Maybrick scrapbook.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are there any ‘yeti’ films that aren’t hoaxes?

[Mike J. G.]

Are there any ‘yeti’ films that aren’t hoaxes?

Definitely, but they're unintentional misidentifications of bears and/or people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Definitely, but they're unintentional misidentifications of bears and/or people.

Fair point Mike.

[Iconoclast]

I'm struggling with this one, Ike, and wondering if you can help me.
You tell us that Florence Maybrick's initials of "FM" on Kelly's wall were first published "in clear and unequivocal form" in a photograph included in a 1973 or even 1972 book and are "so clear" in that photograph.
So how can it be said that a scrapbook which made its first appearance in April 1992 predicted something which had already been publicly revealed about twenty years earlier?
Do you not think it's possible that the forger saw these very clear initials in a book when composing the diary and used them to support the forgery?
Or have I missed something?

My Dear Herlock,

The 'FM' 'shapes' are visible all the way back to Lacassagne in 1897 (IIRC) but you really really need to know where to look to just about make them out because the reproduction is so poor.

Fast forward to 1973 and Farson's paperback comes out and it's very different - the 'FM' 'shape' is suddenly very clear:



But no-one mentions them. Not in the 1970s and not in the 1980s. Simon Wood informs Martin Fido and Keith Skinner that he thinks he has seen initials on her wall in about 1988 at the City Darts pub, but - by the end of the evening - he has conceded that he is mistaken. Crucially, he was not talking about the shapes that look like 'FM'. We have to wait until Martin Fido spots the 'shapes' in late 1992 when he is compiling a report on the scrapbook for Shirley Harrison, and even then he thinks they look like 'PM' but he's willing to accede they could be 'FM'. He spots them because he is looking for them because the scrapbook exists and he has been asked to compile a report on it. If it wasn't for the scrapbook, we still wouldn't be talking about them because - almost certainly - no-one would have ever thought to look that deeply nor think the 'shapes' had any consequence.

So that creates a bit of a dilemma for the Hoax Theory. The scrapbook - come on, without any serious debate - makes reference to Florence Maybrick's initials in the context of Mary Kelly's room, and - lo! - we find the very 'shapes' we would expect to see if the scrapbook were authentic! How on earth could this be because we all know the scrapbook is a hoax? You have a few options:

1) The hoaxer spotted those shapes first - before anyone else in the world. Having spotted them, they backward-engineer a story around them. 'FM' becomes 'Florence Maybrick' and 'Florence Maybrick' leads to 'James Maybrick' and then 'James Maybrick' leads to the actual Jack the Ripper. So the hoaxer investigates Maybrick and finds he fits the known information about Jack. There's not a lot but there's enough (dates especially) to say that Maybrick could be used as a foil for a hoaxed Ripper scrapbook. This is the statistically only plausible explanation if the scrapbook really is a hoax.

2) The hoaxer has already homed-in on James Maybrick and - at some point in the journey towards creating the text of the scrapbook - he or she or they spot the shapes which look so much like 'FM' on Kelly's wall and they think, 'Gotcha - make a reference to them and we'll fool the world!' (oh how naive they were if they did think this).

3) The hoaxer has already homed-in on James Maybrick and - having created the full text of the scrapbook - he or she or they spot the shapes which look so much like 'FM' on Kelly's wall and they think, 'Bloody Hell, that's one heck of a coincidence!'.

Now, I don't believe for a moment that any of 1-3, above, could have happened in the real world (you know, not the online anything-is-possible world) so I have a huge problem resolving how that line ('An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother') could ever have got into that scrapbook unless it is authentic.

In answer to your question, I can't say for certain that the hoaxer was not the first person ever to spot those shapes which look so much like 'FM', but I can say for certain that it is extremely unlikely (IMO) that any of 1-3, above, were the reasons for the line in the text itself.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

My Dear Herlock,

The 'FM' 'shapes' are visible all the way back to Lacassagne in 1897 (IIRC) but you really really need to know where to look to just about make them out because the reproduction is so poor.

Fast forward to 1973 and Farson's paperback comes out and it's very different - the 'FM' 'shape' is suddenly very clear:



But no-one mentions them. Not in the 1970s and not in the 1980s. Simon Wood informs Martin Fido and Keith Skinner that he thinks he has seen initials on her wall in about 1988 at the City Darts pub, but - by the end of the evening - he has conceded that he is mistaken. Crucially, he was not talking about the shapes that look like 'FM'. We have to wait until Martin Fido spots the 'shapes' in late 1992 when he is compiling a report on the scrapbook for Shirley Harrison, and even then he thinks they look like 'PM' but he's willing to accede they could be 'FM'. He spots them because he is looking for them because the scrapbook exists and he has been asked to compile a report on it. If it wasn't for the scrapbook, we still wouldn't be talking about them because - almost certainly - no-one would have ever thought to look that deeply nor think the 'shapes' had any consequence.

So that creates a bit of a dilemma for the Hoax Theory. The scrapbook - come on, without any serious debate - makes reference to Florence Maybrick's initials in the context of Mary Kelly's room, and - lo! - we find the very 'shapes' we would expect to see if the scrapbook were authentic! How on earth could this be because we all know the scrapbook is a hoax? You have a few options:

1) The hoaxer spotted those shapes first - before anyone else in the world. Having spotted them, they backward-engineer a story around them. 'FM' becomes 'Florence Maybrick' and 'Florence Maybrick' leads to 'James Maybrick' and then 'James Maybrick' leads to the actual Jack the Ripper. So the hoaxer investigates Maybrick and finds he fits the known information about Jack. There's not a lot but there's enough (dates especially) to say that Maybrick could be used as a foil for a hoaxed Ripper scrapbook. This is the statistically only plausible explanation if the scrapbook really is a hoax.

2) The hoaxer has already homed-in on James Maybrick and - at some point in the journey towards creating the text of the scrapbook - he or she or they spot the shapes which look so much like 'FM' on Kelly's wall and they think, 'Gotcha - make a reference to them and we'll fool the world!' (oh how naive they were if they did think this).

3) The hoaxer has already homed-in on James Maybrick and - having created the full text of the scrapbook - he or she or they spot the shapes which look so much like 'FM' on Kelly's wall and they think, 'Bloody Hell, that's one heck of a coincidence!'.

Now, I don't believe for a moment that any of 1-3, above, could have happened in the real world (you know, not the online anything-is-possible world) so I have a huge problem resolving how that line ('An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother') could ever have got into that scrapbook unless it is authentic.

In answer to your question, I can't say for certain that the hoaxer was not the first person ever to spot those shapes which look so much like 'FM', but I can say for certain that it is extremely unlikely (IMO) that any of 1-3, above, were the reasons for the line in the text itself.

Ike

Hello Ike,

I still don't get it. If the initials, or the shape of them, as you say, were "very clear" in widely published photographs from as early as 1973 what does it matter that no-one else managed to spot them?

Wouldn't it have been a simple matter for any forger in 1992 to see them if they were very clear?

Using your own logic, as you apply it to Fido, couldn't the forger have spotted them because he was the only person in the world creating a scrapbook implicating someone with an initial letter of "M" in their name?

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike,
I still don't get it. If the initials, or the shape of them, as you say, were "very clear" in widely published photographs from as early as 1973 what does it matter that no-one else managed to spot them?
Wouldn't it have been a simple matter for any forger in 1992 to see them if they were very clear?
Using your own logic, as you apply it to Fido, couldn't the forger have spotted them because he was the only person in the world creating a scrapbook implicating someone with an initial letter of "M" in their name?

Hi Herlock,

I did end my post thus:

In answer to your question, I can't say for certain that the hoaxer was not the first person ever to spot those shapes which look so much like 'FM', but I can say for certain that it is extremely unlikely (IMO) that any of 1-3, above, were the reasons for the line in the text itself.

I can't account for why no-one else saw those letters, even during one entire evening of Simon Wood and Martin Fido poring over the photograph talking about what Simon thought were initials somewhere else on the wall. In retrospect, it seems incredible that no-one ever mentioned them, but we know for a fact that no-one did so our hoaxer has to be particularly perspicacious in this regard. Martin Fido only saw them because he was actively looking for them. If your hoaxer was actively looking for an 'M' to fit his new candidate for Jack the Ripper, how wonderful a moment it must have been when he saw so obvious a one on Kelly's wall!

Now - to the nub of it - we will grant you that the hoaxer was the first person to see and make reference to the 'FM' on Kelly's wall. If this is the case, one of three scenarios occurred. I outlined them in my previous post. If you think a hoaxer was the author of the scrapbook, which of the 3 options are you feeling most confident actually happened?

Ike

[Mike J. G.]

Allo, Ike! Hasn't Simon Wood since recanted his idea that there were initials on the wall?


Either way, I find it just as hard to believe that nobody in 1888 spotted these initials, nor felt the need to mention them if they did, including Joseph Barnett, who had actually lived in the room, yet a century later we have Simon Wood spotting them through the grain of an old photograph.

IMO, there are no initials, I've always struggled to see them, tbh. It's a case of people seeing what they want to see...

I also don't really believe the notion that the diarist predicts anything in the way of finding an "FM" on Kelly's wall.

"An initial here
and a initial there
would tell of the whoring mother"


It's a bit of a stretch, ain't it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I did end my post thus:



I can't account for why no-one else saw those letters, even during one entire evening of Simon Wood and Martin Fido poring over the photograph talking about what Simon thought were initials somewhere else on the wall. In retrospect, it seems incredible that no-one ever mentioned them, but we know for a fact that no-one did so our hoaxer has to be particularly perspicacious in this regard. Martin Fido only saw them because he was actively looking for them. If your hoaxer was actively looking for an 'M' to fit his new candidate for Jack the Ripper, how wonderful a moment it must have been when he saw so obvious a one on Kelly's wall!

Now - to the nub of it - we will grant you that the hoaxer was the first person to see and make reference to the 'FM' on Kelly's wall. If this is the case, one of three scenarios occurred. I outlined them in my previous post. If you think a hoaxer was the author of the scrapbook, which of the 3 options are you feeling most confident actually happened?

Ike

Ike, I was just startled by your use of the word "predicted" which is what prompted me to post.

I can't see how the scrapbook can possibly be said to contain a prediction of something which was clear to the world twenty years before anyone ever set eyes on it

If, as you seem to accept, the forger could have spotted the very clear initials on the wall in the photograph, those initials don't seem to be a great argument in favour of the scrapbook's authenticity.

The only sensible approach, it seems to me, is to take the view that, if it's entirely possible that a forger saw the initials, he probably did.

I don't know exactly what was in the forger's mind and I don't particularly care. What I do know is that the forger makes no mention of any initials on the wall in the scrapbook, let alone the initials "FM", merely leaving it to the reader's imagination to decide what the initials placed here and there were.

He might, for all I know, have been talking about an "F" on the arm and an "M" on the wall.

But that seems far less important than the fact that if the initials were clearly visible on the wall in a published photograph from as early as 1973 or 1972, there is no special mystery about them being referred to in a 1992 document.